Then you cannot read a graph or you do not care to misrepresent what is stated in them.

Quote:

The MWP is showing up at around 1000 AD on one of your charts, wheras on another it has shown up from 1050 AD-1300 AD. Assuming that there is room for error with these proxies (which there always is) then they don't disagree with each other as much as you claim they do.

They are the SAME proxy taken from the SAME location byt the SAME people. If that allows for such a variation how can either be considered to be evidence of anything?

This shows an anomaly of ~1 degree at year 1000 with a higher peak prior. The increase from 0 started at about year 750 and returns at about year 1100 with another series of increases until about year 1600.

This shows a MWP supposedly from year 1000 to year 1300 with the highest peak at 1300. Unlike the previous graph with the highest peak near 1500.

The NH temperature reconstructions speak of the MWP from 950 to 1050 AD (you referenced one yourself) Neither of these seem to agree with that timeframe, however.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The corresponding95% confidence intervals have widths of 0.6 (two millennialong reconstruction) and 0.4 C (500-yr long reconstruction)for 50-yr smoothed values, thereby showingthat the residual noise-variance is relatively small comparedto the reconstructed low-frequency signal.Our main conclusions are as follows.– Our reconstructions indicate – in agreement with theresults of Moberg et al. (2005); Ljungqvist (2010), andLoehle and McCulloch (2008) – that the first millenniumAD was generally significantly warmer than thesecond millennium AD. The 17th century was the coldestcentury during the last two millennia and most ofthe LIA seems to have been colder than during the DarkAge Cold Period ca. 300–800 AD. In general, our LOCreconstructions show larger low-frequency variabilitythan previous reconstructions.– Our two-millennia long reconstruction has a well definedpeak in the period 950–1050AD with a maximumtemperature anomaly of 0.6 C. The timing ofthe peak of the MWP in our reconstruction is in agreementwith the reconstructions of Esper et al. (2002a)and Ljungqvist (2010). The reconstructions ofMann et al. (2008, 2009) show a longer peak warmingcovering the whole period 950–1100 AD, and the reconstructionof Moberg et al. (2005) shows a somewhatlater as well as longer peak MWP warming than in thepresent paper. The level of warmth during the peakof the MWP in the second half of the 10th century,equalling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th centurywarming, is in agreement with the results from othermore recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructionsby Moberg et al. (2005), Mann et al. (2008,2009), Ljungqvist (2010), and Ljungqvist et al. (2012).

Not sure how quoting from a study that I provided to show that the MWP was likely warmer than the present shows that the Hockey Stick Proxy is correct.

_________________Meteorology Undergraduate

Last edited by Snowy123 on Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Then you cannot read a graph or you do not care to misrepresent what is stated in them.

Quote:

The MWP is showing up at around 1000 AD on one of your charts, wheras on another it has shown up from 1050 AD-1300 AD. Assuming that there is room for error with these proxies (which there always is) then they don't disagree with each other as much as you claim they do.

They are the SAME proxy taken from the SAME location byt the SAME people. If that allows for such a variation how can either be considered to be evidence of anything?

This shows an anomaly of ~1 degree at year 1000 with a higher peak prior. The increase from 0 started at about year 750 and returns at about year 1100 with another series of increases until about year 1600.

This shows a MWP supposedly from year 1000 to year 1300 with the highest peak at 1300. Unlike the previous graph with the highest peak near 1500.

The NH temperature reconstructions speak of the MWP from 950 to 1050 AD (you referenced one yourself) Neither of these seem to agree with that timeframe, however.

I'm not willfully misrepresenting anything.

You have a very strange idea that proxy series have very low error margins, and this conviction simply holds no ground with reality.

Not sure how quoting from a study that I provided to show that the MWP was likely warmer than the present shows that the Hockey Stick Proxy is correct.

First, it indicates the multiple correlations between it and other proxy reconstructions, which show a hockey stick when the modern measurements are added. Second, the paper show how accurate your claim concerning the reconstruction really is.

Quote:

The corresponding 95% confidence intervals have widths of 0.6 (two millennia long reconstruction) and 0.4 C (500-yr long reconstruction) for 50-yr smoothed values, thereby showing that the residual noise-variance is relatively small compared to the reconstructed low-frequency signal.

– Our two-millennia long reconstruction has a well defined peak in the period 950–1050AD with a maximum temperature anomaly of 0.6 C.

A maximum anomaly of 0.6 with a confidence interval of 0.6 does not indicate the MWP was warmer than the present. It indicates that it may be possible, but nothing greater.

Snowy123 wrote:

That's not correct as the Christainsen and Ljungqvist paper came to a very opposite conclusion than the conclusion a researcher would come to if the proxy record looked like a hockey stick. The yellow is obseved temperatures, and they still are not warmer than the MWP.

The hockey stick is created by the sharp increase in temperature after a long term decrease. The MWP does not impact that area at all.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Then you cannot read a graph or you do not care to misrepresent what is stated in them.

Quote:

The MWP is showing up at around 1000 AD on one of your charts, wheras on another it has shown up from 1050 AD-1300 AD. Assuming that there is room for error with these proxies (which there always is) then they don't disagree with each other as much as you claim they do.

They are the SAME proxy taken from the SAME location byt the SAME people. If that allows for such a variation how can either be considered to be evidence of anything?

This shows an anomaly of ~1 degree at year 1000 with a higher peak prior. The increase from 0 started at about year 750 and returns at about year 1100 with another series of increases until about year 1600.

This shows a MWP supposedly from year 1000 to year 1300 with the highest peak at 1300. Unlike the previous graph with the highest peak near 1500.

The NH temperature reconstructions speak of the MWP from 950 to 1050 AD (you referenced one yourself) Neither of these seem to agree with that timeframe, however.

I'm not willfully misrepresenting anything.

Yes, you do seem to be doing just that.

Quote:

You have a very strange idea that proxy series have very low error margins, and this conviction simply holds no ground with reality.

No, I have a very real idea that the same proxy measurements taken within 30 feet of each other by the same people using the same procedures should have a reasonable comparison if the process is correct. If it is not correct process it is a useless reference. I have pointed this out several times. I have even clearly asked you when we should count the MWP since the CO2 Science reference you use moves it around by several hundred years, as we see in these graphs when compared to the real paper you also referenced for the NH.

Quote:

And by the way, those two charts were not from the same people.

Read the papers, they are the same people.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

K. Holmgren primary in one and third in the other, P.D. Tyson is second in one and first in the other, which means the primary authors are the same for the two papers and they would be the ones with the critical conversion criteria.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

First, it indicates the multiple correlations between it and other proxy reconstructions, which show a hockey stick when the modern measurements are added. Second, the paper show how accurate your claim concerning the reconstruction really is.

And even with some similar correlations (there is warming in the CWP in both reconstructions) to the Hockey Stick reconstructions, this proxy has the MWP as being warmer than the CWP and has obvious periods of multi-centennial periods of natural variability, with the latest spike in the CWP being well within that variability. This reconstruction looks nothing like the hockey stick reconstruction, even with the added on instrumental temperatures. Therefore, your claim that every single proxy reconstruction with an attached instrumental temperature series for the CWP is simply not correct.

Quote:

A maximum anomaly of 0.6 with a confidence interval of 0.6 does not indicate the MWP was warmer than the present.

Then why have the authors stated that it was in their paper?

Quote:

The hockey stick is created by the sharp increase in temperature after a long term decrease. The MWP does not impact that area at all.

The Hockey Stick reconstruction is characterized by flatlining temperatures before the CWP and a sharp uptick in temperatures during the CWP. The MWP definitely impacts the shape of the temperature reconstruction.

K. Holmgren primary in one and third in the other, P.D. Tyson is second in one and first in the other, which means the primary authors are the same for the two papers and they would be the ones with the critical conversion criteria.

I was unaware that authors with different names was the same group of people.

K. Holmgren primary in one and third in the other, P.D. Tyson is second in one and first in the other, which means the primary authors are the same for the two papers and they would be the ones with the critical conversion criteria.

I was unaware that authors with different names was the same group of people.

Since you either did not notice the bold names, or your education is so lacking that you were not taught that P.D. Tyson and Tyson, P.D. or Holmgren, K. and K. Holmgren are different ways to write the same name, I will inform you of that fact. So you see the lead authors of the both papers are the same team. Those are the folks who do the actual conclusions while the lesser authors do the "grunt work". Often they are what is commonly called grad student slave labor.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

First, it indicates the multiple correlations between it and other proxy reconstructions, which show a hockey stick when the modern measurements are added. Second, the paper show how accurate your claim concerning the reconstruction really is.

And even with some similar correlations (there is warming in the CWP in both reconstructions) to the Hockey Stick reconstructions, this proxy has the MWP as being warmer than the CWP and has obvious periods of multi-centennial periods of natural variability, with the latest spike in the CWP being well within that variability. This reconstruction looks nothing like the hockey stick reconstruction, even with the added on instrumental temperatures. Therefore, your claim that every single proxy reconstruction with an attached instrumental temperature series for the CWP is simply not correct.

Yes, it is because the addition of the instrumental measurements create the blade of the stick, which is what the whole point of the graph was to indicate. The error bars for your proxy and all of the others overlap significantly so they are within a similar range, as the portion of the paper quoted clearly stated.

Quote:

Quote:

A maximum anomaly of 0.6 with a confidence interval of 0.6 does not indicate the MWP was warmer than the present.

Then why have the authors stated that it was in their paper?

That could be due to the fact they did not state it in their paper.

Quote:

Quote:

The hockey stick is created by the sharp increase in temperature after a long term decrease. The MWP does not impact that area at all.

The Hockey Stick reconstruction is characterized by flatlining temperatures before the CWP and a sharp uptick in temperatures during the CWP. The MWP definitely impacts the shape of the temperature reconstruction.

The "bump" in the hockey stick makes it something else? Odd that definition has mutated so significantly since it first came out. Wait, it is not that odd given the situation with that camp.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Since you either did not notice the bold names, or your education is so lacking that you were not taught that P.D. Tyson and Tyson, P.D. or Holmgren, K. and K. Holmgren are different ways to write the same name, I will inform you of that fact. So you see the lead authors of the both papers are the same team. Those are the folks who do the actual conclusions while the lesser authors do the "grunt work". Often they are what is commonly called grad student slave labor.

I was refering to the two authors whom you had not bolded. Even though they may do grunt work it is a different group with different people in that group.

Yes, it is because the addition of the instrumental measurements create the blade of the stick, which is what the whole point of the graph was to indicate. The error bars for your proxy and all of the others overlap significantly so they are within a similar range, as the portion of the paper quoted clearly stated.

The instrumental temperatures may cause what looks to be the blade of a stick in the Christensen et al. reconstruction, but the actual stick part of hockey sticks do not bend and twist. They are straight with little if any signs of variability.

Quote:

That could be due to the fact they did not state it in their paper.

They state it multiple times in the paper, with this being one example:

Since you either did not notice the bold names, or your education is so lacking that you were not taught that P.D. Tyson and Tyson, P.D. or Holmgren, K. and K. Holmgren are different ways to write the same name, I will inform you of that fact. So you see the lead authors of the both papers are the same team. Those are the folks who do the actual conclusions while the lesser authors do the "grunt work". Often they are what is commonly called grad student slave labor.

I was refering to the two authors whom you had not bolded. Even though they may do grunt work it is a different group with different people in that group.

As I was clear to point out I was speaking of those who have the expertise, since the proxy measurements are radically different even with the same lead authors, how does that make a difference?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Yes, it is because the addition of the instrumental measurements create the blade of the stick, which is what the whole point of the graph was to indicate. The error bars for your proxy and all of the others overlap significantly so they are within a similar range, as the portion of the paper quoted clearly stated.

The instrumental temperatures may cause what looks to be the blade of a stick in the Christensen et al. reconstruction, but the actual stick part of hockey sticks do not bend and twist. They are straight with little if any signs of variability.

Since the description was not predicated on such an accuracy given the reconstruction of the "stick" was not straight like a real stick, this is only a weak attempt at a sematical diversion.

Quote:

Quote:

That could be due to the fact they did not state it in their paper.

They state it multiple times in the paper, with this being one example:

Unless you are telling us the MWP was a thousand years long, which is the definition of a millennium, this does not make the statement you claim. This is speaking of an average temperature, of which the Little Ice Age in the second millenium would have a significant impact. You claimed the paper stated the MWP was warmer than the present, which should have a clear statement as such, but you have not shown it to us.

Quote:

Quote:

The "bump" in the hockey stick makes it something else? Odd that definition has mutated so significantly since it first came out. Wait, it is not that odd given the situation with that camp.

There is little temperature variability before the CWP. There is definitely a lot more variability with the Ljungqvist and Christensen reconstruction than there is with the Mann 1998 reconstruction.

There is different variation with ALL of the various "hockey stick" reconstructions. Again the rest of the world seems to be discussing science while the groups opposing climate change are arguing semantics.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein